Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Constitutional Considerations

As I heard the news of the impending
constitutional consultations to take place in Fiji, I wondered how those
Fijians living abroad would be able to participate. As I read and listened to
the responses to the announcement, I wondered just how many Fijians in the
country will involve themselves in this process.

The new constitution will not be the
first in our nation’s history to be promulgated by decree. I recall hearing the
emotion in the voice of the Late Tui Cakau and President of Fiji, Ratu Sir
Penaia Ganilau when he announced to the nation the adoption by decree of the
1990 constitution.

I remember the 1995 “Reeves”
Constitutional Review Commission’s consultations and following the
parliamentary and senate debate and passing and the signing into law in 1997 by
the late former President and Tui Nayau, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara.

In late 2000, the then interim
government appointed a commission to review the 1997 constitution. This
commission was decommissioned after the Chandrika Prasad case ruling that the
1997 constitution was still valid, but was then reappointed. The response that
commission received was vastly different to the Reeves Commission.

My late father, Benjamin (known to many
simply as Ben) Bhagwan was one of the few Indo-Fijians who accepted a position
on this particular constitution review commission. He received a lot of
criticism from political parties, ethnic and religious interest groups and even
from some members of his own extended family. But he remained steadfast in his
decision to accept this position.

As I was abroad at the time, it was only
when we spoke on the phone that he was able to tell me about his decision. He
spoke of his love for and loyalty to Fiji and that, like all the community work
he had been involved in, this was, he felt, another call from God to serve. I
supported him, understanding that he knew the risks and that it could mean
being ostracised by the Indo-Fijian community in the highly racially-charge
atmosphere in Fiji at that time.

Later, when I came home, he shared more
about his work in the commission and his reasons for taking up the role.

My father told me that when he was asked
about being called a traitor, outcast and opportunist by some politicians he
had replied, "I am exercising my democratic right as a citizen of this
country to do justice and to help with reconciliation and democracy in this
country." After receiving his appointment he was approached by an
Indo-Fijian who said that he, “hoped my father would do something for our
race.” My father responded that he did, “intend to do something for his race –
the human race.”

He went on to share some of his
experiences – especially with those pushing racist agendas by using selected
bible verses (proof-texting) to promote their cause. My father would pull out
his bible and challenge them to take the verse in the context of the whole
scripture. He would ask questions and respond to them in English, i-Taukei or
Hindi.

As disappointed as he was with the naive
comments and statements made out of hate or fear, my father believed that
listening the views of the people was the only way to understand what people in
the country were thinking and feeling and was key in understanding why they
felt that way. He hoped that there could be away that these fears, prejudice
could not just be recorded and used as an excuse to create a new biased
constitution but to create something that would address and resolve the visible
and invisible conflict that the nation was engulfed in.

Ultimately though, his views and refusal
to endorse the final and racially biased report meant that he was excluded from
the final team that presented the review to the president.

After he died, as we were packing our
things for one of the many moves my family has made in the last decade (8 times
in the last 8 years!), I came across some of his notes and records of the
submissions made in the review.

As I read through them, I could not help
but cry – not just in memory of my father – but as I realised that our nation
is made of many communities whose cries of pain for injustices, both real and
imagined need to be heard and attended to, not with political rhetoric but with
genuine care and healing.

Whether we support the current
government or not or are fans of its leadership or not, it is our
responsibility as Fiji citizens, as Fijians (whether we agree with the change
in citizenship name or not) and as parents or future parents of Fijians, to
embrace every opportunity to have a say, no matter how little, how much or even
whether or not it is heard and accepted, in the future shape of Fiji.

Every voice needs to speak up now. Every
interest group: political, community and religious group needs to ensure that
these consultations are completely inclusive – by including themselves within
the dialogue, not just commenting from the sidelines.

As we come to these crucial markers in
the history of our country, what we say, and, perhaps more importantly, what we
do, will either be a brick in a solid house in which we can all live or be a
proverbial “brick in the wall.”

What home are we building for our
children? Are we helping to build it, or will we merely wait for it to be
built, move in and complain about it?

Many of us are caught up simply trying
to survive. We keep away from anything to do with governance or politics. That
is understandable. We need to feed, clothe, shelter and protect our families.

However, one day, when our children or
their children read about this time in our nation’s history; they may ask us:
“what did you do?”